It's really interesting to see how public opinion on the net falls into many problems and issues. Years ago, the internet and such public opinion machines like Twitter and Facebook were hailed as the liberation of the individual worldwide, everybody could voice their opinion so the world will become better...right?
Actually, not really. It did good for most but after a certain degree of liberty, it tends to turn for the bad side. By that, I mean toxic discussions, trolling and other things.
With the example of the discussion of the refugee wave coming to Europe, I wanna discuss why I think said things apply and what conclusions can be drawn from it.
A False Sense Of Liberty
But first, a lot of overhead. Let's talk about what I mean by "after a certain degree of liberty, it tends to turn for the bad side". Let's imagine a democracy and a dictatorship. Obviously, freedom of speech and other things are completely different. A dictator would try to bind the public so that bad opinions about him are unheard. After all, enough open expression of grief and dissatisfaction can lead to a revolution. In a certain way, you could say that a dictatorship lives from a tight order. And the better your leadership is, the less tight needs your order to be. If your citizens are happy because you care for them first and foremost, why would you wanna cut public opinion?
A democracy doesn't have this problem. In a democracy, you usually can voice your opinion about everything, even against the government. You don't need to hide behind several proxy servers, you can do it freely. Certainly, it means that the diversity of individuals will be much more diverse. And having a tight order like in a dictatorship would lead to an immediate uproar - after all, the public would see their liberties cut. So the order in a democracy is automatically more lax than in a dictatorship - the price of democracy is thus that dangerous opinions can have mass effects on the public.
And with the rise of the internet, the effects are even more ampilfied. Opinions became a very powerful tool that is in the hands of everyone who's got access to the net. Now it isn't reserved to famous people, politicians or journalists. Now you can voice your opinion, you can gather your support and you alone can cause a shit storm with a controversial statement. You have the power, and not only the Grayskull one. The net became a new kind of government. Which one, we may ask?
Well...
The Democratic, Dictatorship-like, Anarchic Empire
Why that? Well, the order of the internet is very basic (some web sites don't even have netiquettes) or non-existant. I'd go even further and say that everybody became a self-governed leader of their own empire. Why? As I mentioned above, everybody has the power of opinions now. Earlier, journalists may have led the public opinion with their revelations and articles, the "fourth power" of democracy. Now, everybody with a certain base behind oneself can do it. And that's where the toxic part comes into play.
Humans are egoistic. Sometimes very narcisstic. And thus, a simple service for voicing and sharing opinions and other things like Twitter became a hype or, as Jon Ronson said it in a TED talk, a "social approval machine". And an interesting trend I've faced is: only rarely, open-ended questions are raised. As one example, I'll take the alleged rape case of the girl carrying the mattress ever since. Everybody voiced their opinion but nobody wanted to get to know others' opinions. No tweet like: "How should we handle this?" or, after it turned out to be very dubious, "How do we rehabilitate people who are shamed by the public?" Just state your opinion, await approval in form of likes and/or shares and you feel already content. And you will feel mightier after people backing you. And people backing you: it's basically the principle of an election for presidency.
But we are also prone to faults and hate to admit them. We rather cover them up with insults, denounciations and other things to distract from our faults. Or if we voiced an opinion only very few back up, then we may change the opinion to save face and stay in control, most of the time like a typical politician.
And if it comes to discussions, oh boy. If everybody is their own empire, it's basically the clash of the empires. And instead of retreating and coming back with better ammo (logic and facts) or signing an armistice (I respect your opinion, you respect mine, and thanks for sharing it despite differences), to become victorious, we use simple and sometimes dirty methods. One I'll introduce you to now: aristocratic methods.
The Plutocratic Part Of The Internet
Now, we finally arrived at the trigger of this article: the discussion or opinion slinging about the refugee wave hitting Europe (or for US people, imagine Mexico is in war and they cross the border). Why that? Because one common argument chain goes like this:
A: Well, the conditions are terrible in the refugee camps! Why does the government not do anything?
B: Where do you want them to live, in a house? It will cost billions and these can be better spent elsewhere!
A: I don't know who you are, but instead of letting them rot there, we should provide good conditions as refugees have fled due to war and terrible living conditions. They can't go back anymore! It's our responsibility as industry nation to protect them!
B: Then why don't you go and donate money for them, or clothes? Heck, you could even let them live in your home to solve the problem! But instead, you do nothing, so keep your opinion away, hypocrite!
And, have we found our opinion somewhere? Hopefully not the last two sentences because the implication is very sinister. The method: "Don't voice opinions yourself cannot act upon". Why is this a very dirty method? Basically, it deprives the poor of an opinion. "If you barely survive with the money you get every month, don't talk about how others should spend their money." Or: "If you want them to live here, you should take them". Also, if that logic applied, we couldn't talk about anything anymore. Our opinions would be bound or even gone. Politics then don't make sense anymore because everybody cannot talk about energy for example. "If you want solar power, first have a solar panel area in your garden before deciding the country's course!" That's not what democracy's about. In a democracy, everybody's supposed to have the same power, whether rich or poor. And opinions shall be respected. In the ideal democracy, at least.
What's to say in the end? I'm still using Facebook, idle on Twitter and so on because sometimes, you need a challenge. Found an opinion you cannot understand? Try to get it by fact checking or logic. Found an opinion you seem to agree on? Ask yourself why and don't blindly agree. If you find a conflict, challenge it, find other solutions or stay neutral. Be free of ideology (*cough* Lefties and Righties *cough*) and giving others names. So basically, use your brain efficiently and do your best.
No comments:
Post a Comment